## Facts

- Robert and Elizabeth Monyak boarded two dogs, Lola and Callie, at Barking Hound Village, LLC (BHV) for ten days.
- Callie had been prescribed an anti-inflammatory arthritis medication; the owners provided the medication with instructions that it be given only to Callie.
- Three days after the dogs were retrieved, Lola was diagnosed with acute renal failure.
- After extensive veterinary treatment, including dialysis, Lola died about nine months later.
- The owners sued BHV and its manager, alleging Lola was negligently given toxic doses of Callie’s medication, seeking compensatory damages (including substantial veterinary expenses) and punitive and litigation expenses based on alleged fraud and deceit.
- Defendants sought summary judgment on damages, arguing recovery for Lola’s death was limited to her fair market value and that Lola had no market value.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the Court of Appeals held that if market value is minimal or nonexistent, damages are the dog’s “actual value” to the owners (limited to economic factors and excluding sentimental value).
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted review to determine the correct measure of damages for the negligent death of a pet dog.

## Issues

1. Whether damages for the negligent death of a pet dog are measured by the dog’s fair market value or by an “actual value to the owner” standard when market value is low or uncertain.
2. Whether owners may recover reasonable veterinary and related expenses incurred in treating the animal in addition to the animal’s fair market value.
3. Whether sentimental or intrinsic value to the owners is recoverable as damages for the loss of a pet.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals.
- The Court held that the proper measure of damages includes the animal’s fair market value at the time of loss (plus interest) and, in addition, any reasonable medical and other expenses incurred in treating the animal.
- The Court rejected “actual value to the owner” as a substitute measure that displaces fair market value.
- The Court agreed that sentimental or intrinsic value is not recoverable.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings applying the correct damages standard, including factual assessment of the reasonableness of claimed expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Dogs are personal property under Georgia law.
- For personal property negligently destroyed, damages are generally the property’s fair market value at the time of loss plus interest from the date of loss.
- In cases involving animals, owners may also recover reasonable veterinary and related expenses incurred in treating the animal prior to death, even if those expenses exceed the animal’s market value.
- Damages for sentimental attachment or intrinsic value to the owner are not recoverable for pets, consistent with Georgia’s general rule for personal property.
- The reasonableness of veterinary and related expenses is a fact question evaluated case-by-case.

## Conclusion

Georgia measures damages for a negligently killed pet dog by the dog’s fair market value (plus interest) together with reasonable veterinary and related treatment expenses, while barring recovery for sentimental or intrinsic value; lower courts may not replace market value with a broad “actual value to the owner” standard.


Barking Hound Village, LLC v. Monyak, 299 Ga. 144, 787 S.E.2d 191 (Ga. 2016)